Mixing Motives: Political Donations by Corporate Executives

References

• Ansolabehere S, De Figueiredo JM, Snyder JM Jr (2003) Why is there so little money in US politics? J. Econom. Perspect. 17(1):105–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D (1995) Campaign contributions and access. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 89(3):566–581.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babenko I, Fedaseyeu V, Zhang S (2020) Do CEOs affect employees’ political choices? Rev. Financial Stud. 33(4):1781–1817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber M (2016) Donation motivations: Testing theories of access and ideology. Political Res. Quart. 69(1):148–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber MJ, Canes-Wrone B, Thrower S (2017) Ideologically sophisticated donors: Which candidates do individual contributors finance? Amer. J. Political Sci. 61(2):271–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron DP (1989) Service-induced campaign contributions and the electoral equilibrium. Quart. J. Econom. 104(1):45–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beddewela E, Fairbrass J (2016) Seeking legitimacy through CSR: Institutional pressures and corporate responses of multinationals in Sri Lanka. J. Bus. Ethics 136(3):503–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Bombardini M, Fisman R, Trebbi F (2020) Tax-exempt lobbying: Corporate philanthropy as a tool for political influence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 110(7):2065–2102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum PH (1985) Political strategies of regulated organizations as functions of context and fear. Strategic Management J. 6(2):135–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bizjak JM, Kalpathy SL, Mihov VT, Ren J (2022) CEO political leanings and store-level economic activity during the COVID-19 crisis: Effects on shareholder value and public health. J. Finance 77(5):2949–2986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blake DJ, Moschieri C (2017) Policy risk, strategic decisions and contagion effects: Firm-specific considerations. Strategic Management J. 38(3):732–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blake DJ, Markus S, Martinez-Suarez J (2024) Populist syndrome and nonmarket strategy. J. Management Stud. 61(2):525–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonardi J-P, Hillman AJ, Keim GD (2005) The attractiveness of political markets: Implications for firm strategy. Acad. Management Rev. 30(2):397–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonica A (2016) Avenues of influence: On the political expenditures of corporations and their directors and executives. Bus. Politics 18(4):367–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonica A (2018) Inferring roll-call scores from campaign contributions using supervised machine learning. Amer. J. Political Sci. 62(4):830–848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonica A (2019) Are donation-based measures of ideology valid predictors of individual-level policy preferences? J. Politics 81(1):327–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonica A (2024) Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections (DIME): Public version 4.0. Stanford University Libraries. Accessed December 27, 2025, https://data.stanford.edu/dime.Google Scholar
• Bonica A, McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H (2013) Why hasn’t democracy slowed rising inequality? J. Econom. Perspect. 27(3):103–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouton L, Cagé J, Dewitte E, Pons V (2022) Small campaign donors. Working Paper 30050, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bower JL (1972) Managing the Resource Allocation Process: A Study of Corporate Planning and Investment (Irwin, Homewood, IL).Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Chin M, Hambrick DC (2014) CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1786–1809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burris V (2001) The two faces of capital: Corporations and individual capitalists as political actors. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 66(3):361–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chin MK, Hambrick DC, Treviño LK (2013) Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(2):197–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clawson D, Neustadtl A, Weller M (1998) Dollars and Votes: How Business Campaign Contributions Subvert Democracy (Temple University Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• Cox GW, McCubbins MD (1986) Electoral politics as a redistributive game. J. Politics 48(2):370–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Culpepper PD, Reinke R (2014) Structural power and bank bailouts in the United Kingdom and the United States. Politics Soc. 42(4):427–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Culpepper PD, Thelen K (2020) Are we all Amazon primed? Consumers and the politics of platform power. Comparative Political Stud. 53(2):288–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalton DR, Hitt MA, Certo ST, Dalton CM (2007) The fundamental agency problem and its mitigation: Independence, equity, and the market for corporate control. Acad. Management Ann. 1(1):1–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Egerod BC, Stuckatz J, Mueller M (2024) Revolvers in the corporate elite. New Working Paper Series No. 351, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Management Rev. 14(1):57–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elnahas AM, Kim D (2017) CEO political ideology and mergers and acquisitions decisions. J. Corporate Finance 45(4):162–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faccio M (2006) Politically connected firms. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(1):369–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econom. 26(2):327–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fos V, Kempf E, Tsoutsoura M (2022) The political polarization of corporate America. Working Paper 30183, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Fouirnaies A, Hall AB (2014) The financial incumbency advantage: Causes and consequences. J. Politics 76(3):711–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fouirnaies A, Hall AB (2018) How do interest groups seek access to committees? Amer. J. Political Sci. 62(1):132–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Francia PL, Green JC, Herrnson PS, Powell LW, Wilcox C (2005) Limousine liberals and corporate conservatives: The financial constituencies of the democratic and republican parties. Soc. Sci. Quart. 86(4):761–778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fremeth A, Richter BK, Schaufele B (2013) Campaign contributions over CEOs’ careers. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 5(3):170–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fremeth A, Richter BK, Schaufele B (2015) Motivations for corporate political activity. Adv. Strategic Management 34(1):161–191.Google Scholar
• García-Canal E, Guillén MF (2008) Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management J. 29(10):1097–1115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gimpel JG, Lee FE, Pearson-Merkowitz S (2008) The check is in the mail: Interdistrict funding flows in congressional elections. Amer. J. Political Sci. 52(2):373–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon SC, Hafer C, Landa D (2007) Consumption or investment? On motivations for political giving. J. Politics 69(4):1057–1072.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grier KB, Munger MC (1991) Committee assignments, constituent preferences, and campaign contributions. Econom. Inquiry 29(1):24–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grier KB, Munger MC (1993) Comparing interest group PAC contributions to House and Senate incumbents, 1980-1986. J. Politics 55(3):615–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Amer. Econom. Rev. 84(4):833–850.Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Helpman E (2001) Special Interest Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Briscoe F, Hambrick DC (2018) Evenhandedness in resource allocation: Its relationship with CEO ideology, organizational discretion, and firm performance. Acad. Management J. 61(5):1848–1868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Fung A, Murphy C (2021) Out of character: CEO political ideology, peer influence, and adoption of CSR executive position by Fortune 500 firms. Strategic Management J. 42(3):529–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Nadkarni S, Mariam M (2019) Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(4):855–893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall RL, Wayman FW (1990) Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 84(3):797–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC (2007) Upper echelons theory: An update. Acad. Management Rev. 32(2):334–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hassan TA, Hollander S, Van Lent L, Tahoun A (2019) Firm-level political risk: Measurement and effects. Quart. J. Econom. 134(4):2135–2202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heerwig JA (2016) Donations and dependence: Individual contributor strategies in house elections. Soc. Sci. Res. 60(1):181–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heerwig JA (2018) Money in the middle: Contribution strategies among affluent donors to federal elections, 1980–2008. Amer. J. Sociol. 123(4):1004–1063.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2000) The institutional environment for economic growth. Econom. Politics 12(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ, Zelner BA (2001) The institutional environment for telecommunications investment. J. Econom. Management Strategy 10(1):123–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ (2005) Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line? J. Management 31(3):464–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Hitt MA (1999) Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):825–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Keim GD, Schuler D (2004) Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. J. Management 30(6):837–857.Google Scholar
• Hillman AJ, Withers MC, Collins BJ (2009) Resource dependence theory: A review. J. Management 35(6):1404–1427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Himmelberg CP, Hubbard RG, Palia D (1999) Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. J. Financial Econom. 53(3):353–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hojnacki M, Kimball DC (2001) PAC contributions and lobbying contacts in congressional committees. Political Res. Quart. 54(1):161–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holburn GL, Vanden Bergh RG (2008) Making friends in hostile environments: Political strategy in regulated industries. Acad. Management Rev. 33(2):521–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT (2006) The end of the end of ideology. Amer. Psych. 61(7):651–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jost JT, Federico CM, Napier JL (2009) Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Rev. Psych. 60(1):307–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kagan M, Frake J, Hurst R (2026) VRScores: A voter registration-based approach for measuring workforce politics. Organ. Sci. 37(2):444–465.Link, Google Scholar
• Kalla JL, Broockman DE (2016) Campaign contributions facilitate access to congressional officials: A randomized field experiment. Amer. J. Political Sci. 60(3):545–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katic IV, Hillman A (2023) Corporate political activity, reimagined: Revisiting the political marketplace. J. Management 49(6):1911–1938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim IS (2018) Lobbyview: Firm-level lobbying & congressional bills database. Working paper, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kim IS, Stuckatz J, Freiheyt LW (2026) Systemic and sequential links between campaign donations and lobbying. J. Politics 88(1):110–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langbein LI (1986) Money and access: Some empirical evidence. J. Politics 48(4):1052–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levendusky M (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindblom CE (1977) Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-Economic Systems (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Lux S, Crook TR, Woehr DJ (2011) Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. J. Management 37(1):223–247.Google Scholar
• Mannor MJ, Busenbark JR (2025) A donation-based indicator of political ideology (DIPI): An open dataset for studying the political ideologies of employees, top management teams, CEOs, boards, and industries. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 188(1):104419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKean AE, King BG (2024) When ideologies align: Progressive corporate activism and within-firm ideological alignment. Strategic Management J. 45(12):2459–2518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meisels M, Clinton JD, Huber GA (2024) Giving to the extreme? Experimental evidence on donor response to candidate and district characteristics. British J. Political Sci. 54(3):851–873.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nadkarni S, Barr PS (2008) Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: An integrated view. Strategic Management J. 29(13):1395–1427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nownes AJ, Aitalieva NR (2013) The political activities of American corporate leaders. Bus. Politics 15(4):493–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nyberg AJ, Fulmer IS, Gerhart B, Carpenter MA (2010) Agency theory revisited: CEO return and shareholder interest alignment. Acad. Management J. 53(5):1029–1049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper and Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Powell EN, Grimmer J (2016) Money in exile: Campaign contributions and committee access. J. Politics 78(4):974–988.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Przeworski A, Wallerstein M (1988) Structural dependence of the state on capital. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 82(1):11–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Richter BK, Werner T (2016) Sources of congressional candidates’ funds: Does interest group money dominate? Cigler AJ, Loomis BA, Nownes AJ, eds. Interest Group Politics, 9th ed. (Sage, Los Angeles, CA), 155–175.Google Scholar
• Richter BK, Werner T (2017) Campaign contributions from corporate executives in lieu of political action committees. J. Law Econom. Organ. 33(3):443–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer T, Snyder JM Jr (1994) An empirical investigation of the dynamics of PAC contributions. Amer. J. Political Sci. 38(3):745–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sawant RJ (2012) Asset specificity and corporate political activity in regulated industries. Acad. Management Rev. 37(2):194–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuler DA, Rehbein K, Cramer RD (2002) Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Acad. Management J. 45(4):659–672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semadeni M, Chin M, Krause R (2021) Pumping the brakes: Examining the impact of CEO political ideology divergence on firm responses. Acad. Management J. 65(2):516–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith MA (2000) American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder JM Jr (1990) Campaign contributions as investments: The US House of Representatives, 1980-1986. J. Political Econom. 98(6):1195–1227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder JM Jr (1992) Long-term investing in politicians; or, give early, give often. J. Law Econom. 35(1):15–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steel RS (2026) Lobbying against enforcement. Yale J. Regulation. Forthcoming. Google Scholar
• Steel RS (2026) The political transformation of corporate America, 2001–2022. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 120(2):582–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuckatz J (2022a) How the workplace affects employee political contributions. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 116(1):54–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuckatz J (2022b) Political alignment between firms and employees in the United States: Evidence from a new dataset. Political Sci. Res. Methods 10(1):215–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su J, He J (2010) Does giving lead to getting? Evidence from Chinese private enterprises. J. Bus. Ethics 93(1):73–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swigart KL, Anantharaman A, Williamson JA, Grandey AA (2020) Working while liberal/conservative: A review of political ideology in organizations. J. Management 46(6):1063–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teso E (2025) Influence-seeking in US corporate elites’ campaign contribution behavior. Rev. Econom. Statist. 107(3):685–696.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (2000) Cognitive biases and organizational correctives: Do both disease and cure depend on the politics of the beholder? Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(2):293–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tosi HL, Werner S, Katz JP, Gomez-Mejia LR (2000) How much does performance matter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies. J. Management 26(2):301–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tullock G (1967) The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Econom. J. 5(3):224–232.Google Scholar
• Wei Y, Jia N, Bonardi J-P (2023) Corporate political connections: A multidisciplinary review. J. Management 49(6):1870–1910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Werner T (2015) Gaining access by doing good: The effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policy making. Management Sci. 61(8):1989–2011.Link, Google Scholar
• Weschle S (2024) Campaign finance. Mause K, Polk A, eds. The Political Economy of Lobbying: Channels of Influence and Their Regulation (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 143–165.Google Scholar
• Weymouth S (2012) Firm lobbying and influence in developing countries: A multilevel approach. Bus. Politics 14(4):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright JR (1990) Contributions, lobbying, and committee voting in the US house of representatives. Amer Political Sci. Rev. 84(2):417–438.Crossref, Google Scholar